Should we call out dogmatic beliefs on the forum?

[Consept]

So on the forum i notice that sometimes you get people with strong dogmatic beliefs, this can range from Trump is a coral genius and is going to save the world to im as enlightened as the Buddha to the law of attraction is is to do with meta physical vibrations. 

Now when i see these types of things i feel the urge to question them, this could be because i think truth is very important and i think just believing in anything that feels good to you can be dangerous, not only for you but you could influence others, most people that espouse these beliefs do so with unwavering certainty. Theres probably some things going on with my ego, where i want to be right about things and its almost offensive that someone can be so wrong. Theres also some compassion where i feel that someone has missed something and theyre lost in a delusion. I never try to call them out directly as in i wont just say 'youre wrong', i give reasons why theyre right as well as the other side that questions the belief. What i notice is that people are often overly defensive about them and they even start to attack or dismiss by saying things like, you dont get it because youre not conscious enough. 

So the question is it our responsibility as fellow people who are on some path of achieving higher consciousness, to call out delusions in others that are on a similar path? It would seem to me to be the compassionate thing to call it out rather than let someone live in delusion. Its not something that i would really do in normal life as your average person just wants to believe what they want and prizes that over truth, which is fair enough. But i feel like people are on here to drop delusions and become more conscious. 

Of course the question comes who is going to decide who is able to question who? For example if someone is deluded in some theory they may and probably do feel theyre being compassionate by opening your mind to it. So how do we navigate this thing or should we just let people get on with it live in their delusion and hope they get there in the end. Im well aware i could be deluded as well btw and if i am im happy for people to call me out on it and have a conversation about it

[Thomas_VH]

1 hour ago, Consept said:

they even start to attack or dismiss by saying things like, you dont get it because youre not conscious enough. 

Well, that's exactly what you're saying about them. 

1 hour ago, Consept said:

the question comes who is going to decide who is able to question who?

Good question; I think a forum is a great place for discussing different POV's, as long as they aren't closed minded dogma. As per this case, I am under the impression that you created this thread because you were upset about the other thread going around about the LOA? I personally don't think LOA falls under closed minded dogma, at least not the idea of it. But your question remains, who is to judge? I guess we should leave that to the mods.

Question why you feel that others should not fall into dogmatic traps. Is it because you care about raising Collective Consciousness, or is it because your ego wants to be proven right? is it 50/50 perhaps? I'm not saying it's either one, but the answer to that question could reveal some interesting insight about yourself and your personal progress.

Ultimately this will forever remain a gray area of which the people in charge of the forum will get to decide what goes and what doesn't, as with all groups within society.

[Consept]

5 minutes ago, Thomas_VH said:

Good question; I think a forum is a great place for discussing different POV's, as long as they aren't closed minded dogma. As per this case, I am under the impression that you created this thread because you were upset about the other thread going around about the LOA? I personally don't think LOA falls under closed minded dogma, at least not the idea of it. But your question remains, who is to judge? I guess we should leave that to the mods.

It's not that I was upset about it or that I even thought people that believed in LOA are automatically trapped closed minded dogma. It's more the nature of the response to questioning and the attitude that was taken by some around that belief. Actually when I looked into it, there's loads of stuff that's true about it but just not necessarily the pseudo science aspects which is the main thing some people were arguing about. So for me it's not so much the content, it's the assertion that this person thinks they're 100% correct when really there are gaping holes where they've jumped to massive conclusions, the content could be anything really. 

Of course judging this is the hard part because those that are tied to dogma will argue that they're not. 

13 minutes ago, Thomas_VH said:

Question why you feel that others should not fall into dogmatic traps. Is it because you care about raising Collective Consciousness, or is it because your ego wants to be proven right? is it 50/50 perhaps? I'm not saying it's either one, but the answer to that question could reveal some interesting insight about yourself and your personal progress.

It's probably both as I said and that will be something for me to introspect on. But how I look at it as well is that the point of spiritual work is to become aware of our many delusions otherwise what is the point of the forum, to just hold up our dogmatic beliefs? 

[Michal__]

You seem to be convinced to know what is the truth.

If you feel your POV is going to get you somewhere then hey, by all means keep it.

 

[Fran11]

There are people who just take things on blind faith, yes.

But it is also true that there are many asspects about spirituality that you can confirm by direct experience besides God Conciousness (which is the main spiritual theme Leo talks about and everybody here knows about).

But of course from the POV of someone who isn't experienced in these other asspects, people who claim such things will look like dogmatic fools. Just like someone claiming that God is not a belief would also come across to most people outside this forum.

Of course you should not blindly believe in these things, but rather making your own experience if you are interested.

 

 

[Michal__]

1 minute ago, Fran11 said:

There are people who just take things on blind faith, yes.

But it is also true that there are many asspects about spirituality that you can confirm by direct experience besides God Conciousness (which is the main spiritual theme Leo talks about and everybody here knows about).

But of course from the POV of someone who isn't experienced in these other asspects, people who claim such things will look like dogmatic fools. Just like someone claiming that God is not a belief would also come across to most people outside this forum.

Of course you should not blindly believe in these things, but rather making your own experience if you are interested.

 

 

You hit the nail on the head.

[Consept]

7 minutes ago, Fran11 said:

There are people who just take things on blind faith, yes.

But it is also true that there are many asspects about spirituality that you can confirm by direct experience besides God Conciousness (which is the main spiritual theme Leo talks about and everybody here knows about).

But of course from the POV of someone who isn't experienced in these other asspects, people who claim such things will look like dogmatic fools. Just like someone claiming that God is not a belief would also come across to most people outside this forum.

Of course you should not blindly believe in these things, but rather making your own experience if you are interested.

 

 

The trouble is, how do you make the distinction? If someone is lets say Christian and says on the forum 'My Christian God exists and you would have to experience it yourself to make your own decision', it means that if i dont experience it i cant question this belief, if this Christian then says 'you have to believe and then it will be true for you', i can believe it but a belief alone does not make something true if that was the case literally anything can be true, even stuff that contradicts. So if people use this belief system for different things, how do we draw the distinction about whats true and what isnt? 

Have a look at this video, he goes through, polite epistemological process of questioning someone who believes in religion, if you look at the mechanics of her thinking is very interesting 

 

[Fran11]

8 minutes ago, Consept said:

 'you have to believe and then it will be true for you', i can believe it but a belief alone does not make something true if that was the case literally anything can be true, even stuff that contradicts. 

 

Personally, I do not claim that.

8 minutes ago, Consept said:

The trouble is, how do you make the distinction? 

If you are interested, by experimenting yourself.

If you are not interested, and still claim that X is a dogma, without any experience, that itself is a dogma.

There's no easy quick way of separating the wheat from the chaff. It takes work on your part.

Edited September 26, 2020 by Fran11

[Consept]

7 minutes ago, Fran11 said:

If you are interested, by experimenting yourself.

If you are not interested, and still claim that X is a dogma, without any experience, that itself is a dogma.

There's no easy quick way of separating the wheat from the chaff. It takes work on your part.

OK but wouldnt that entail testing everything, which of course is not a bad thing, but the very way to experiment with most beliefs is to believe them, thats what all religions say and many other things say. The reason i was drawn to non-duality and that type of spirituality is precisely because it was a stripping away of beliefs, including ones Id held all my life, rather than trying to add on beliefs. Im not talking about occult as ive said i dont really know anything about it. But in general anything that asks me to believe something without direct experience or trys to take some other happening and attribute it to the particular god or theory or belief, basically something thats not really epistemologically sound, i would consider that a dogmatic belief. 

A test of this would be to look at whether your reason for belief can be valid with another belief. For example a Christian might say 'i believe in my God because i prayed for something and it happened' so they will say their direct experience is what made them believe, however a Hindu might say 'I prayed to Vishnu and what i wanted happened', however both people will say the other one is completely wrong and theyre right, even though they both came to their belief in exactly the same way it just had a different story. Technically if you accept that your way of coming to a belief is correct you should take on everyone elses belief who came to it in the same way. Therefore the belief is not sustainable. I will say there is a lot of truth in both religions, its just if you take the on dogmatically and literally it gets lost 

[Fran11]

@Consept Those are very crude Stage Blue examples, of course it's dogmatic.

Mysticism, unless it's a low quality source, doesn't ask you to believe but to have an open mind and practice. 

 

Edited September 26, 2020 by Fran11

[Fadl]

I think if we all take the same "drug" we will start thinking the same way and everybody will become a buddha or sth.

It is ok to be different, life is a big Illusion.

[Consept]

12 minutes ago, Fran11 said:

@Consept Those are very crude Stage Blue examples, of course it's dogmatic.

Mysticism, unless it's a low quality source, doesn't ask you to believe but to have an open mind and practice. 

 

Yes i used them to highlight the belief structure, other practices that follow a similar belief structure should definitely be questioned. Ultimately what any practice should do is allow you to drop any beliefs or thoughts and just witness and be with what is. I think even the religions i mentioned do this to some extent its just they have a whole load of other beliefs and rules you have to follow, then you end up getting tied to this and lose the point, it becomes dogmatic. Im not too concerned about the content but if it can point me in the right direction which is to stillness essentially, then im all for it in terms of helping to open up consciousness for everyone 

[Fran11]

36 minutes ago, Consept said:

other practices that follow a similar belief structure should definitely be questioned.  

I agree, but be careful about going into things with a debunking attitude, assuming they are false beforehand. Of course you will get nothing out of it that way. 

Sometimes what it really means when people say "You have to believe in it for it to work" is just that you have to approach it with an open mind.

Consider that even if a closed-minded materialist goes into non-duality, he would never realise it to be true.

It's a delicate balance beetween not buying things on faith, but also giving them a fair opportunity.

Edited September 26, 2020 by Fran11

[No Self]

Ramana Maharshi never told anyone to change their religious views, but engaged with people at whatever level they were at.

Eckhart Tolle takes a similar approach, re-interpreting Christian symbology whereby God=consciousness and the kingdom of heaven=enlightenment.

The thing to be aware of is the ego that wants to win debates, display its intellectual dominance or change other people. Ramana once told his followers, "Mind your own business". Watching your trouble-making ego is far more important than anything changing others. 

(Obviously, this is not practical advice for moderating a forum as it would lead to a dogmatic takeover and all sorts of keyboard warrior warfare. But worth mentioning nonetheless.)

[Thewritersunion]

Most people who say those things are Orange ✨

[Consept]

21 minutes ago, Fran11 said:

I agree, but be careful about going into things with a debunking attitude, assuming they are false beforehand. Of course you will get nothing out of it that way. 

Sometimes what it really means when people say "You have to believe in it for it to work" is just that you have to approach it with an open mind.

Consider that even if a closed-minded materialist goes into non-duality, he would never realise it to be true.

It's a delicate balance beetween not buying things on faith, but also giving them a fair opportunity.

True, ive actually gotten a lot out of the bible and Jesus' teachings but if i had taken it in from a 'true believer' of the religion i think it wouldve put me off just because of the dogmatic approach. There are some schools and religions that are an out and out scam but i actually think there is truth in everything, even watching the nxivim doc i could see that there was some truth in what their philosophies were it just went off the rails and turned into a cult. So im open minded in that respect i just dont gel with the 'i believe it because its true and its true because i believe it' kind of dogma, i also think its a bit risky to not have multiple sources, as in just to have one teacher or one religion as you will then tie yourself to that one ideology 

 

7 minutes ago, No Self said:

Ramana Maharshi never told anyone to change their religious views, but engaged with people at whatever level they were at.

Eckhart Tolle takes a similar approach, re-interpreting Christian symbology whereby God=consciousness and the kingdom of heaven=enlightenment.

The thing to be aware of is the ego that wants to win debates, display its intellectual dominance or change other people. Ramana once told his followers, "Mind your own business". Watching your trouble-making ego is far more important than anything changing others. 

(Obviously, this is not practical advice for moderating a forum as it would lead to a dogmatic takeover and all sorts of keyboard warrior warfare. But worth mentioning nonetheless.)

Yeah excellent reminder and advice. For the forum it is difficult as you have so many perspectives at once, but i guess just let people be where theyre at, if they are open to questioning im sure they will respond in an open way

[Fran11]

21 minutes ago, Consept said:

i also think its a bit risky to not have multiple sources, as in just to have one teacher or one religion as you will then tie yourself to that one ideology 

That's why I feel it's a weak point of Actualized.org that it's strongly biased towards Eastern spirituality. 

It makes people close-minded about some asspects about spirituality besides Awakening.

The East also deals with the occult of course, but it's mostly concerned about Enlightenment and Liberation.

Whereas in the West it's the opposite. 

Edited September 26, 2020 by Fran11

[Thewritersunion]

@Fran11 what’s Western Spirituality like?

[Fran11]

57 minutes ago, Thewritersunion said:

@Fran11 what’s Western Spirituality like?

The occult is mostly based upon becoming concious of sublter planes of reality, which have a descending causality upon the physical level.

All major traditions recognize this, that's why Easterners also talk about the Subltle Body and it's Chakras, Prana, Siddhis, etc. 

You can think of these planes as being intermediate levels beetween "Pure Formless Awareness" and the "Physical Level". They are more amorphus and fluid. The mind exists on these leves (which is why you can't reduce a thought down to gross matter) and affects them.

This doesn't mean you can break nature's laws and affect physical reality in any way you want, it's still limited.

But rather realising that nature's laws actually aren't as rigid as materialist science believes, which is only concious of the most gross level of reality.

Edited September 27, 2020 by Fran11

[DocWatts]

I guess it becomes a question as to whether calling someone out when they're espousing a dogmatic belief will lead to a productive discussion on the matter, or whether the person in question is more likely to become defensive and end up derailing conversations in this forum. I've changed my mind on plenty of things, I guess it just depends on how the subject is broached; is the person responding in a somewhat respectful manner, or are they doing so in an accusatory way that's likely to trigger a defensive response?  This is assuming of course that both parties are acting in good faith; otherwise that's what we have moderation for, isn't it?

Edited September 27, 2020 by DocWatts